Case law

Energy Transfer v. S. Cortes & Middletown Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2023

While [Designated Appellants’] time and efforts in compiling the [E]xemption [L]og clearly [were] substantial and constituted a good-faith effort to qualify these documents for … Considered as a whole, the evidence presented to the OOR and trial court clearly establish that the Township, pursuant to its “official duties,” engaged in an ongoing “systematic or searching inquiry,” “detailed examination

Your Towne Builders, Inc. v. Manheim Twp. ~ Appeal of: Manheim Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2023

Constitution states, in pertinent part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the [U.S.]; nor shall any State … Th[e trial c]ourt was not sufficiently convinced by either [Appellants’] qualified expert, Gary Shambaugh [(Shambaugh)], or [Appellees’] conflicted lay witness and co[-]defendant

Borough of Emmaus v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

156 A.3d 384 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2017

Clearly, Philadelphia Firefighters’ Union, Local 22 has no logical connection to the issue presented in this case. … Furthermore, for purposes of governmental immunity under the Judicial Code, “[v]olunteer firefighters shall be treated as public employees,” and an “[e]mployee” is defined as “[a]ny person who is acting or who has acted on

K. Takeshita v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2021

Claimant’s husband’s 20 years of Mercer County service and 5 years of military service qualified him for a pension upon his retirement from Mercer County. … reasonable for Claimant and her husband to move for her husband’s higher-paying job since the timing was good due to her husband’s retirement from his job, and their children’s college education expenses were rising, it was clearly

State Workers' Insurance Fund v. Harburg Medical Sales Co., Inc. (Bureau of Workers' Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2022

Issues On appeal,5 SWIF argues that this Court already determined in a separate matter that Harburg does not qualify as a “health care provider” under the Act and, thus, lacks standing to request fee review. … It argues that its liability for this treatment must be established in a claim petition proceeding. We disagree.

Rose Tree Media S.D. v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 2023

The issue before this Court is whether, under Section 402.1(5) of the Law, Claimant qualifies for UC benefits beginning with the week ending June 20, 2020, the same period for which he was denied UC benefits under Section … The facts herein establish that the ESY and summer school programs were typical with Employer and these “terms” were essential extensions of the academic year for many students. (FOF ¶¶ 6-7.)

Lower Salford Twp. v. J.A. Wright

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2023

When the Township refused, with an explanation that Wright III clearly contemplated “either Highmark being made a defendant once again or the institution of a new lawsuit including Highmark as a defendant,” Wright made a … Thus, the order fully disposed of the Township’s claims, and therefore, qualifies as a final order under Pa. R.A.P. 341.

Philadelphia v. Angelone

3 Pa. Commw. 119 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 1971

This principle is so well-established, it needs no citation. … In this case, the City of Philadelphia clearly intended to discourage and eventually eliminate this nonconforming use by its retroactive application of its zoning amendment.

Vision Academy Charter School of Excellence v. Southeast Delco School District (Charter School Appeal Board)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2023

The Charter School obtained the signatures of 1,425 qualified District residents over the age of 18, which exceeded the number of signatures required to qualify a charter school to pursue an appeal from a charter denial to … (6) Hold the schools established under [the CSL] accountable for meeting measurable academic standards and provide the school with a method to establish accountability

M.J. Burrelli v. M. Julian

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 2018

Actions brought under Section 1983 for violations of federal constitutional rights may be filed in Pennsylvania courts and are not subject to state sovereign immunity defenses. See Owens v. … Burrelli’s allegations are clearly insufficient to establish a constitutional violation under Section 1983 since he has no constitutional right to the investigation or prosecution of another person. As this is Mr.

L.H. Wagner v. Allegheny County ADA C.H. Connors

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2017

Taken in the context of a fair trial as a whole, Wagner alleged he could prove ADA Connors’ actions violated clearly established rights. … Did [ADA Connors’] actions cause the forfeiture of all immunities? 5.

Liverpool Township v. Stephens

900 A.2d 1030 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 2006

To qualify for a "disposal" permit under Ordinance 13, the landowner must agree not to spread the fertilizer "within five hundred (500) yards of any dwelling, church, school, or any other building or buildings which from … Regulations adopted by the Environmental Quality Board have established the standards for a DEP permit to apply sewage sludge to agricultural land. Among them are standards establishing setbacks and buffers.

Craft Pittsburgh USA, Inc. v. Mt. Lebanon Planning Board and Friends of 50 Moffett St.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2023

Discussion Craft presents the following arguments for our consideration, which we have summarized and reordered as follows.3 First, the Planning Board incorrectly determined that Road A would not qualify as a “private … In sum, the Planning Board failed to clearly articulate its reasoning and conclusions regarding how Road A should be classified and, in doing so, has deprived us of the ability to accurately dispose of Craft’s appeal.

McGAFFIC v. City of New Castle

973 A.2d 1047 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2009

But it is also harsh when a person is paralyzed by governmental negligence and cannot recover damages because the government's conduct does not fall into one of the exceptions to immunity. … First, it is clearly within the City's power to enter into contracts and written obligations such as the Closeout Agreement.

Estate of R.M. Scaife v. Com. of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2025

Provisos need not be expressly labeled in a statute, and their purpose is to “qualify, restrain, or otherwise modify the general language of the enabling provision.” Downs Racing, L.P. v. … establishing their legitimacy is presented by the party seeking their enforcement.

P. Murray v. Shaler Twp. ZHB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2022

“The [Township] is governed by the [Board] as established under [the Code].” www.shaler.org/27/Government (last visited Mar. 11, 2022). … To establish that an accommodation proposed to satisfy the [FHAA] is not reasonable, one must establish that the proposed accommodation would: (1) impose undue financial and administrative

In re: 4714 Morann Ave., Houtzdale, Clearfield County, PA ~ Appeal of: Com. of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2023

Such evidence is necessary to establish the probative value of a “controlled buy.” … In short, the trial court did not clearly hold in favor of the Commonwealth at least on the subjective value of the house.

S.T. Carpenito v. North Manheim Twp. ZHB & B. Nolt

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 2026

Given this, Nolt clearly failed to prove that he was entitled to his requested R-2 District use variance, because the record incontrovertibly establishes that the requisite unnecessary hardship does not exist as to the R- … Brinkash was qualified as an expert in civil engineering and land development. He was the only such expert that testified. 28. Mr.

M. Fahad v. Bureau of Driver Licensing

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2019

Nevertheless, in Middaugh, we refined the first Gingrich prong by adopting objective criteria to use when considering whether the delay qualifies as extraordinary. … Cmwlth. 2017), not a right, and in light of the obvious public safety concerns clearly demonstrated here, I would reverse the Delaware County Common Pleas Court’s order and reinstate Licensee’s license suspension.

D.J. Norman v. PUC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2018

By contrast, Norman asserts that his evidence clearly showed double-billing and overcharges. … Judicial notice can be used to establish when Hurricane Irene affected the Philadelphia area, but it cannot be used to establish its impact upon a single home in the area.